|
Eternity and Time; two entirely separate things, we explain
"the one having its being in the everlasting Kind, the other in
the realm of Process, in our own Universe"; and, by continually
using the words and assigning every phenomenon to the one or the
other category, we come to think that, both by instinct and by
the more detailed attack of thought, we hold an adequate
experience of them in our minds without more ado.
When, perhaps, we make the effort to clarify our ideas and close
into the heart of the matter we are at once unsettled: our doubts
throw us back upon ancient explanations; we choose among the
various theories, or among the various interpretations of some
one theory, and so we come to rest, satisfied, if only we can
counter a question with an approved answer, and glad to be
absolved from further enquiry.
Now, we must believe that some of the venerable philosophers of
old discovered the truth; but it is important to examine which of
them really hit the mark and by what guiding principle we can
ourselves attain to certitude.
What, then, does Eternity really mean to those who describe it as
something different from Time? We begin with Eternity, since when
the standing Exemplar is known, its representation in image-
which Time is understood to be- will be clearly apprehended-
though it is of course equally true, admitting this relationship
to Time as image to Eternity the original, that if we chose to
begin by identifying Time we could thence proceed upwards by
Recognition [the Platonic Anamnesis] and become aware of the Kind
which it images.
|
|